Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: CES19: AMD Zen 2 results.... Your Opinion? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
02-11-2019 05:06 PM
Undervolter Ok, now that i 've installed everything, i can say that FX is really close in general feeling, but the Ryzen feels a bit snappier on the desktop. And it might be due to better SSD performance. Opening the menus in the control panel aren't faster. They feel just like FX. In general, i find a small improvement, but nothing earth shattering. Some applications seem to launch faster too.
02-11-2019 09:09 AM
miklkit
Quote: Originally Posted by The Pook View Post

Yeah, the driver conflicts were between Macroshaft, Creative, and AMD. The FX ignored them but they had the mouse lagging badly and the sound cutting out with the Ryzen 1700. It took me a month to get it all sorted out.
02-11-2019 06:14 AM
jclafi I have 67ns memory latency w/ my 3200 RAM.

My R5 2600 is WAY FASTER on Desktop and Gaming compared to my old FX 8350. Once overclocked the performance is even better! I still have my FX system w/ SSD and one GT730 DDR5 card. My wife uses the system and love it !

No sense talk !
02-10-2019 07:49 AM
The Pook
Quote: Originally Posted by miklkit View Post
I thought I had a good running FX system until I pulled the hard drives and put them in th Ryzen rig. Nothing but problems! But once the driver conflicts and latency issues were taken care of it got up to speed. Still not sure if it is as fast as FX.

02-10-2019 06:55 AM
Undervolter
Quote: Originally Posted by miklkit View Post
FX is fast on the desktop. My 1700 was quite slow at first but after some tweaking it got better. Latency is a problem and Ryzen can be finicky about it while FX doesn't sweat it and just works.



I thought I had a good running FX system until I pulled the hard drives and put them in th Ryzen rig. Nothing but problems! But once the driver conflicts and latency issues were taken care of it got up to speed. Still not sure if it is as fast as FX.
I ll be damned! I hate sluggish feeling on the desktop. Actually, i read about 1st gen Ryzen latency issues and that's another reason why i went with Ryzen2600, hoping that this would be less of an issue. I am crossing my fingers. I would hate it if i made a Ryzen build, only to find myself relegating it to secondary machine for gaming only, while i keep the FX for general purpose rig. Duh.
02-10-2019 05:54 AM
miklkit FX is fast on the desktop. My 1700 was quite slow at first but after some tweaking it got better. Latency is a problem and Ryzen can be finicky about it while FX doesn't sweat it and just works.



I thought I had a good running FX system until I pulled the hard drives and put them in th Ryzen rig. Nothing but problems! But once the driver conflicts and latency issues were taken care of it got up to speed. Still not sure if it is as fast as FX.
02-10-2019 12:35 AM
Undervolter
Quote: Originally Posted by miklkit View Post
You won't notice anything on the desktop. Ryzen might even be slower.



The single thread performance of my FX was about the same as the 2600k while the single thread performance of my 1700 is about the same as a 4790k. At stock this 1700 ran at 3 ghz and boosted to 3.742 ghz but after OCing it performs better than less than 200 mhz would indicate. And volts aren't that bad. This one hits 1.394v in light loads and 1.356v in heavy loads. The LLC is set to "auto" and I'm fine with that.
What! Slower??? Great... Maybe i made a hole in the water at the end... I intend to leave anything to auto too, which is also one of the reasons why i preferred the 2600 over the 1700. I don't do much video encoding anymore, so the extra 2 cores would be wasted. I will keep FX rig for video encoding, if needed. From what i saw, the 2600 is on par with 1600X, which is 3.6Ghz (both at stock). So i thought "better a cpu at 3.6Ghz at stock, than at 3Ghz with 2 more cores). I will be very disappointed if it turns out that it feels slower than Vishera.
02-09-2019 11:02 AM
miklkit You won't notice anything on the desktop. Ryzen might even be slower.



The single thread performance of my FX was about the same as the 2600k while the single thread performance of my 1700 is about the same as a 4790k. At stock this 1700 ran at 3 ghz and boosted to 3.742 ghz but after OCing it performs better than less than 200 mhz would indicate. And volts aren't that bad. This one hits 1.394v in light loads and 1.356v in heavy loads. The LLC is set to "auto" and I'm fine with that.
02-09-2019 01:42 AM
Undervolter
Quote: Originally Posted by miklkit View Post
All CPUs have microcode built into them and I have found that the old instruction sets in FX is the main thing holding them back. FX can not run the latest SSE. For this reason I
have decided to update the cpu every 2-3 years just to get the lates instruction sets.


When I first got this Ryzen 1700 up and running at speed I compared the [email protected] to the [email protected] in old and new games. The FX was better in heavily modded DX7 and DX8 games. The FX and Ryzen were more or less even in DX9 games, but Ryzen was 20fps better in DX11 games. That's the microcode difference in action.


I will be getting a 3xxxX cpu next fall and have decided to get an X570 motherboard as well. Unfortunately this Biostar X370 GT7 has spoiled me. I might have to get a GT9 to get all the features I have gotten used to.
I see... Since i don't intend to move to Win10 any time soon and since i don't play much new games, i don't have the same eagerness for constant upgrades, but, i hope i will at least feel like having a faster desktop and program launching/execution. I use often some programs that are saturated in single thread with the FX. So, i hope that i will put the Ryzen in and say "wow, that was so faster"!. This will make me happy enough, because, otherwise, the only game that i will probably want and would benefit a lot from Ryzen isn't out yet. It's Elders Scrolls VI, which is still "under construction" and if it's similar to Skyrim, i will probably get it.
02-08-2019 12:54 PM
miklkit All CPUs have microcode built into them and I have found that the old instruction sets in FX is the main thing holding them back. FX can not run the latest SSE. For this reason I
have decided to update the cpu every 2-3 years just to get the lates instruction sets.


When I first got this Ryzen 1700 up and running at speed I compared the [email protected] to the [email protected] in old and new games. The FX was better in heavily modded DX7 and DX8 games. The FX and Ryzen were more or less even in DX9 games, but Ryzen was 20fps better in DX11 games. That's the microcode difference in action.


I will be getting a 3xxxX cpu next fall and have decided to get an X570 motherboard as well. Unfortunately this Biostar X370 GT7 has spoiled me. I might have to get a GT9 to get all the features I have gotten used to.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off